Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. He has relied upon judgment passed by this Court in a case of Bajaj Allianz General Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Tarun Kaura and others, passed in F.A.O No. 2887-2008, decided on 02.03.2010. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the liability has been wrongly fastened on the Insurance company, as trailer itself is an independent motor vehicle, in view of the definition contained in the Motor vehicles Act. In absence of a valid driving licence to drive trailer along with the tractor, it was not permissible for the Tribunal, to have fastened the liability to pay compensation on the insurance company. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 364, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :-

4 of 18 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130165 FAO-1193-2006 (O&M) order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor- trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under section 2(14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under section 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under section 2(14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under section 2(47) of the M.V. Act, 1988." On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was not considering the validity of a driving licence, to drive the trolley along with the tractor, but was considering as to whether the trailer is to be treated as a separate motor vehicle for the purposes of taxation on the motor vehicles. It was in that context, that the trailer was held to be taken as an independent motor vehicle. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be read to mean, that the person holding a driving licence to drive a tractor cannot drive, it with the trolley attached to it. Trolley is an agricultural equipment, therefore, the driver holding a driving licence to drive tractor can always drive tractor along with the trolley, and no fault can be found with the finding recorded by 5 of 18 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130165 FAO-1193-2006 (O&M) the learned Tribunal, nor it can be said that the driver was not holding the valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle."